Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Hey... if you ever wanted a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black... here it is.
You think KJVOnlyism is rational and logical when you cannot cite a single scriptural nor historical fact that proves it? Give me a break...Nuff said? Are you kidding???
Hey... if you ever wanted a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black... here it is.
You think KJVOnlyism is rational and logical when you cannot cite a single scriptural nor historical fact that proves it? Give me a break... </font>[/QUOTE]Yet, you pontificate without giving a single reasoned reply to any one of my assertions. What do you think that I believe? I can give you a historical fact--the historic influence and virtual domonance of the KJV in the English-speaking world, especially in America. It's language and doctrine permeates all of American values and ideals until around the 1950's when it was challenged by various forms of relativism.Which assertion would you like me to start with?
Fair enough to get us started, what specifically do you believe?
And why was that? It began with its endorsement by the English crown and the CoE's determined and successful effort to make it the only version available. By the time the US won its independence, it was standard... although not by choice but by force. Change is always difficult and Bibles in a relative sense were far more expensive then than now so there was no immediate change.
Nope. You can call lower textual criticism many things but it is not relativism.
What do I think? I think you have deliberately ignored my request to prove your contention. Go back and read my post, and please answer my questions.
If there were Scriptural support for KJV-Onlyism (of course you still haven't provided any), then the Geneva Bible would not be God's Holy Word. Yet the Geneva Bible IS God's Holy Word.
I don't see why
Hey... if you ever wanted a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black... here it is.
You think KJVOnlyism is rational and logical when you cannot cite a single scriptural nor historical fact that proves it? Give me a break... </font>[/QUOTE]Yet, you pontificate without giving a single reasoned reply to any one of my assertions. What do you think that I believe? I can give you a historical fact--the historic influence and virtual domonance of the KJV in the English-speaking world, especially in America. It's language and doctrine permeates all of American values and ideals until around the 1950's when it was challenged by various forms of relativism. </font>[/QUOTE]Dear UnPaid, "Historical Influence"? Hello! what about BEFORE 1611? Please abandon your man made unscriptural myth. 
Be sure that you understand my statement before jumping off to delusions. Read carefully. I said that the American values and ideals shaped by the KJV were challenged by the rise of relativism in the 1950’s. It began in the 1950’s (perhaps even the 1940’s) but it was very evident by the 1960’s. It had nothing to do with the rationalistic textual criticism that rose during the last half of the nineteenth century.</font>[/QUOTE]Irrelevant, immaterial, presumptive, ill-considered and WRONG! you have totally misunderstood and misstated my conclusion and your own conclusion is senseless. Sir, you would have done better not to even have taken notice and replied.
Hey... if you ever wanted a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black... here it is.
You think KJVOnlyism is rational and logical when you cannot cite a single scriptural nor historical fact that proves it? Give me a break... </font>[/QUOTE]Yet, you pontificate without giving a single reasoned reply to any one of my assertions. What do you think that I believe? I can give you a historical fact--the historic influence and virtual domonance of the KJV in the English-speaking world, especially in America. It's language and doctrine permeates all of American values and ideals until around the 1950's when it was challenged by various forms of relativism. </font>[/QUOTE]Dear UnPaid, "Historical Influence"? Hello! what about BEFORE 1611? Please abandon your man made unscriptural myth. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, Orvie, this does get so tiresome. I noticed that you picked up the name game too. I do suppose Unpaid is cute but not terribly creative and ingenious. Exactly what is the connection since paidogogos[/s] is a Geek…..uh…….I mean Greek word? You’re just too clever for me. TIC
Alas, thou hast failed to provide even ONE Scriptural Passage to support KJV-Onlyism.Originally posted by paidagogos:
Orvie, old man, you oughta learn to think instead of slurping up without tasting everything some seminary prof or popular book offers. You can’t defend your view because you really don’t know your own arguments and you haven’t been savvy enough to patiently read and understand mine either. For me, it’s rather like fishing on a trout farm. You catch a lot of fish but it ain’t no challenge or much fun.
Bye!
Come on Paid, Dr Bob, Scott J,Robycop, and I have asked you the same question...and you have refused to answer and are building from the roof, down. Our position is that the same place the AV translators found the Scriptures to translate them into the KJV, we should do that today w/ the MV's. Have you forgotten that even the KJV was a MV in 1611? You just keep repeating the same ole, same ole from various Mythites; Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, etc. Our position predates yours (at least the way I understand it)by 15 centuries (as far as the NT is concerned). We're saying that your position is man made b/c you simply cannot produce one itty-bitty verse to support your view. The KJVO position (at the exclusion of valid BV's) is built on assumption and conjecture. See ya.
Alas, thou hast failed to provide even ONE Scriptural Passage to support KJV-Onlyism. </font>[/QUOTE]Cute! You are trying to place a burden of proof upon me that you cannot sustain yourself. First, give me a single verse that clearly supports MV's, an eclectic Greek text, or even translations in general for that matter. Yes, I am well aware that the OT Hebrew was quoted in Greek in the NT. However, this is an argument from inference and the KJVO use the same type of argumentation for preservation which is explicitly stated but not exactly delineated.Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
Orvie, old man, you oughta learn to think instead of slurping up without tasting everything some seminary prof or popular book offers. You can’t defend your view because you really don’t know your own arguments and you haven’t been savvy enough to patiently read and understand mine either. For me, it’s rather like fishing on a trout farm. You catch a lot of fish but it ain’t no challenge or much fun.
Bye!
Cute! You are trying to place a burden of proof upon me that you cannot sustain yourself. First, give me a single verse that clearly supports MV's, an eclectic Greek text, or even translations in general for that matter. Yes, I am well aware that the OT Hebrew was quoted in Greek in the NT. However, this is an argument from inference and the KJVO use the same type of argumentation for preservation which is explicitly stated but not exactly delineated.
Come on Paid, Dr Bob, Scott J,Robycop, and I have asked you the same question...and you have refused to answer and are building from the roof, down. Our position is that the same place the AV translators found the Scriptures to translate them into the KJV, we should do that today w/ the MV's. Have you forgotten that even the KJV was a MV in 1611? You just keep repeating the same ole, same ole from various Mythites; Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, etc. Our position predates yours (at least the way I understand it)by 15 centuries (as far as the NT is concerned). We're saying that your position is man made b/c you simply cannot produce one itty-bitty verse to support your view. The KJVO position (at the exclusion of valid BV's) is built on assumption and conjecture. See ya.
This is an inference and application, not the primary teaching of this passage. This is not necessarily speaking of Scripture--it refers to speaking in the church as in teaching or preaching. It may be applied or inferred to the translation of Scripture but this is not the primary occasion. Inferences and applications are subject to human reasoning and can be wrong. In fact, this is exactly the kind of reasoning that KJVO's use for preservation and the KJVO.Originally posted by Orvie:
Paid-"Cute! You are trying to place a burden of proof upon me that you cannot sustain yourself. First, give me a single verse that clearly supports MV's, an eclectic Greek text, or even translations in general for that matter. Yes, I am well aware that the OT Hebrew was quoted in Greek in the NT. However, this is an argument from inference and the KJVO use the same type of argumentation for preservation which is explicitly stated but not exactly delineated.
Now, you go first. What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander."
Orvie-"Here's one for ya, which shows that God has preserved His Word in the MV's, including in 1611-present the KJV: 'So likewise ye,except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.' 1 Cor 14:9 KJV1769 What part of words easy to be understood do you not understand?
I'm glad 2c ya have a sense of humourOriginally posted by paidagogos:
Orvie, you are just being the tail on the dog. Read my reply to Dr. Bob. You're just gloating over what you think is a knockout blow. If you really had your head, instead of your loyalty much like the loyalty to a football team, in this thing you ought to have anticipated my answer. It wasn't a hard matter to handle. You're just razzling me much like the kids at the football game on Friday night. Likewise, it deserves the same weight of worthy consideration. NONE! Nice talking to ya! Bye!
)Ouch! If you are right, I have a dilemma. Personally, I liked the idea of old John Smyth of the Gainsborough, England congregation who believed that the preaching, teaching, and study of Scripture should come directly from the Greek text. He preached, as I understand, from the Greek. So, according to your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:9 (1769), old John and I are Scripturally wrong. What do you think?Originally posted by Orvie:
Paid-"Cute! You are trying to place a burden of proof upon me that you cannot sustain yourself. First, give me a single verse that clearly supports MV's, an eclectic Greek text, or even translations in general for that matter. Yes, I am well aware that the OT Hebrew was quoted in Greek in the NT. However, this is an argument from inference and the KJVO use the same type of argumentation for preservation which is explicitly stated but not exactly delineated.
Now, you go first. What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander."
Orvie-"Here's one for ya, which shows that God has preserved His Word in the MV's, including in 1611-present the KJV: 'So likewise ye,except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.' 1 Cor 14:9 KJV1769 What part of words easy to be understood do you not understand?